Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Grethergreen1 sentence2021Summit No. 28977, 2019-Ohio-4243, ¶ 16 (noting that it is the appellant’s burden to establish error on appeal). 10 {¶23} Ms. Perkins also argues that her counsel failed to object to the victim’s hearsay testimony about the fact that someone from UPS told her that the package was left on a chair outside of her apartment. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2007See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , at ¶ 32 (recognizing that the defendant bears the burden to establish self-defense); State v. Smith , Franklin App. No. 01AP-848, 2002-Ohio-1479 (recognizing that the defendant bears the burden to establish the defense of another). 2007See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , at ¶ 32 (recognizing that the defendant bears the burden to establish self-defense); State v. Smith , Franklin App. No. 01AP-848, 2002-Ohio-1479 (recognizing that the defendant bears the burden to establish the defense of another). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. James v. Ohio State University
green
2 sentences2011James v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168, 169 , 637 N.E.2d 911, 912 . {¶8} Neither party in this case has moved for summary judgment, nor has Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, thus, this court sits as a trial court, “weighing the evidence properly before us and rendering a judgment on the merits of the complaint.” Roberts v. Winkler, 176 Ohio App.3d 685, 692 , 2008-Ohio-2843 , 893 N.E.2d 534, ¶19 . 2011James v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168, 169 , 637 N.E.2d 911, 912 . {¶8} Neither party in this case has moved for summary judgment, nor has Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, thus, this court sits as a trial court, “weighing the evidence properly before us and rendering a judgment on the merits of the complaint.” Roberts v. Winkler, 176 Ohio App.3d 685, 692 , 2008-Ohio-2843 , 893 N.E.2d 534, ¶19 . | 5 | 1994–2011 |
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University
green
2 sentences1999“Exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian of the public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.” Thomas, supra, 71 Ohio St.3d at 247 , 643 N.E.2d at 128 . 1. 1999“Exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian of the public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.” Thomas, supra, 71 Ohio St.3d at 247 , 643 N.E.2d at 128 . 1. | 5 | 1996–1999 |
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County
green
2 sentences2012Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376-377 , 662 N.E.2d 334 (1996). {¶36} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that trade secrets—as defined by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. 1333.61 et seq.—are exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43 because their release is prohibited by state law. 2011In withholding the identity of the officers from the Enquirer’s requested documents, Respondent relies on the exception located in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v), which removes from the definition of public record, “[r]ecords the 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS release of which is prohibited by state or federal law[.]” “Exceptions to disclosure must be strictly construed against the custodian of public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.” Hamilton Cty, 75 Ohio St.3d at 376-77 , citing State ex rel. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State ex rel. Multimedia Inc. v. Snowden
green
2 sentences2000Thus, the next step is to ascertain whether any of the exemptions in R.C. 149.43(A)(2) apply. “[E]xeeptions to disclosure must be strictly construed against the custodian of the public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.” Multimedia, 72 Ohio St.3d at 142 , 647 N.E.2d at 1377 , citing State ex rel. 2000Thus, the next step is to ascertain whether any of the exemptions in R.C. 149.43(A)(2) apply. “[E]xeeptions to disclosure must be strictly construed against the custodian of the public records, and the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian.” Multimedia, 72 Ohio St.3d at 142 , 647 N.E.2d at 1377 , citing State ex rel. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Matchmaker International Inc. v. Long
green
2 sentences2020MatchMaker Internatl., Inc. v. Long, 100 Ohio App.3d 406, 408 , 654 N.E.2d 161 (9th Dist.1995), citing Dykeman v. Johnson, 83 Ohio St. 126 , 135, 93 N.E. 626 (1910). 2020MatchMaker Internatl., Inc. v. Long, 100 Ohio App.3d 406, 408 , 654 N.E.2d 161 (9th Dist.1995), citing Dykeman v. Johnson, 83 Ohio St. 126 , 135, 93 N.E. 626 (1910). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Peyko v. Frederick
green
2 sentences2013Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 , 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). 2013Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 , 495 N.E.2d 918 (1986). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Winkler
green
2 sentences2011James v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168, 169 , 637 N.E.2d 911, 912 . {¶8} Neither party in this case has moved for summary judgment, nor has Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, thus, this court sits as a trial court, “weighing the evidence properly before us and rendering a judgment on the merits of the complaint.” Roberts v. Winkler, 176 Ohio App.3d 685, 692 , 2008-Ohio-2843 , 893 N.E.2d 534, ¶19 . 2011James v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168, 169 , 637 N.E.2d 911, 912 . {¶8} Neither party in this case has moved for summary judgment, nor has Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, thus, this court sits as a trial court, “weighing the evidence properly before us and rendering a judgment on the merits of the complaint.” Roberts v. Winkler, 176 Ohio App.3d 685, 692 , 2008-Ohio-2843 , 893 N.E.2d 534, ¶19 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Krahn v. Kinney
green
1 sentence2000To establish a claim for malpractice, a plaintiff must show: "(1) an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach." Krahn v. Kinney (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 103 , 105 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Henneman v. City of Toledo
green
2 sentences1996Thomas v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 245, 247 , 643 N.E.2d 126, 128 . {¶ 20} Relators rely on Henneman v. Toledo (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 241 , 520 N.E.2d 207 , syllabus, where the court held that “[r]ecords and information compiled by an internal affairs division of a police department are subject to discovery in civil litigation arising out of alleged police misconduct if, upon an in camera inspection, the trial court determines that the requesting party’s need for the material outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of such information.” Relators contend that such reco 1996Thomas v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 245, 247 , 643 N.E.2d 126, 128 . {¶ 20} Relators rely on Henneman v. Toledo (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 241 , 520 N.E.2d 207 , syllabus, where the court held that “[r]ecords and information compiled by an internal affairs division of a police department are subject to discovery in civil litigation arising out of alleged police misconduct if, upon an in camera inspection, the trial court determines that the requesting party’s need for the material outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of such information.” Relators contend that such reco | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.